W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: EME and proprietary plug-ins

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:31:00 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZQVtj50UzRLZVKy_yHX7TedJjV98=iOdFv4Lqf+WFoUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, public-html-admin@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> I was responding to the thread of reasoning I thought I heard you making
> that said "EME would make the playing field less level than it already can
> be (and is) with Flash/SL."  I don't believe that to be true, other than
> browsers that don't support EME.

Apart from licensing, there is the technical issue that Henri raised which
has been ignored so far in this thread: there is a publicly defined API,
NPAPI, through which any browser can integrate Flash and Silverlight. There
is no such thing currently proposed for EME CDMs, so for that reason alone,
NPAPI plugins provide a more level playing field across browsers than EME
proposes to.

Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur
Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl
bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat
lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir
— whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb
tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 23:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:22 UTC